Communication 07 Supreme Court Opinion

Home

120 P.3d 217 Page 18 108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217 (Cite as: 108 Hawai'i 318, 120 P.3d 217) found in the County Reapportionment able people is “fractured” by assigning portions of Commission's records. No court has ever “upper” Puna along with portions of the adjoining **233 *334 subscribed to such a conclusion. judicial district of South Hilo to County Council District # 3 and by assigning other portions of “upper” Puna along with all of the ad- (Emphases in original.) It should be noted joining judicial district of Ka‘u and portions of the that the opinion did not reference “every non-adjoining, distant judicial district of South man, woman, child, incarcerated felon, Kona to County Council District # 6. As a result, soldier, dependent of a soldier, resident residents of Puna have one resident councilor and alien and others,” as Appellants imply in must “share” two councilors with other adjoining the quote above. The opinion did not em- districts who may or may not be a resident of Puna. ploy such a list. Indeed, Appellants stated This is a classic example of vote dilution of resi- as a point of error that “the 2001 County dents of one district in favor of residents of other Reapportionment Commission should districts. have used a population base that excluded nonresident military personnel and their As a result, residents of the “upper” Puna, whose dependents and nonresident students,” population may justify a single councilor of its (emphases added), groups which the opin- ion did discuss. own, find their interests submerged into the adjoin- ing and distant judicial districts of South Hilo, Ka‘u, and South Kona. More significantly, Council Appellants' motion attempts to clarify what was Districts # 1, 2, 3, and 4 are denominated by “Hilo obviously ambiguous in their appellate briefs-the interests,” with a statistically significant number of possibly problematic effect of the redistricting plan non-resident students (who should have been ex- FN9 According to the on “communities of interest.” cluded) in the judicial district of South Hilo. motion, the redistricting plan allegedly “fractures” the “judicial” district of Puna: (Emphasis in original.) FN9. Appellants contend that “Table Two, reproduced in Opening Brief, Appendix 25, While this explanation may have raised a con- shows how the judicial district of Puna with cern, Appellants withdrew these arguments in the 31,307 countable people is ‘fractured.’ ” January 6, 2003 stipulation to amend first amended (Emphasis in original.) But Table Two, complaint and for entry of judgment. The stipulation without explanation, does not convey the stated: specific contention that Puna was “frac- tured.” In fact, Appellants did not utilize Plaintiffs and Defendants herein stipulate to the Table Two for this proposition. Appellants amendment of the First Amended Complaint filed referenced Table Two on three occasions in here on March 6, 2002 as follows: their opening brief. The first and second ref- erences, stating that “[t]he consequence of 1.Plaintiffs withdraw and delete Paragraphs 12.a not excluding these persons from the popu- to 12.f; lation base is set forth in Table One and Ta- ble Two,” and that “[t]he statistical signifi- 2. Plaintiffs withdraw and delete Paragraphs 12.j cance of the 810 nonresidents who are lo- to 12.n. cated in the District of South Hilo is shown in Table Two,” were cryptic at best. In the The effect of the deletions is to withdraw Plain- third reference, Appellants utilized Table tiffs' allegations that the County of Hawaii 2001 Two to “show[ ] the number of persons who Reapportionment Commission failed to use a “ra- fall below or above the ideal mean for each tional or objective methodology” (¶¶ 12.a to 12.f) council district,” not to point out that Puna and wrongfully submerged communities of interest was being “fractured.” into larger districts (¶¶ 12.j to 12.n) but not Plain- tiffs' allegations as to the population base that the [T]he judicial district of Puna with 31,307 count- © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.